My claim is the modest and surely uncontroversial one that JoshuaZ’s “random African” is a better guardian of his own welfare than you, or Bill Gates, or a random do-gooder.
It is not (language warning) entirely uncontroversial. Whether through poor education or through giving disproportionate value to present circumstances (and none or too little to future circumstances), people can and often do do things that are, in the long run, self-defeating. (And note that this ‘long run’ can be measured in weeks or months, even hours in particularly extreme cases).
At least one study suggests that the ability to reject a present reward in favour of a greater future reward is detectable at a young age and is correlated with success in life.
Of course people can do things that are self-defeating—did I ever suggest otherwise? I never said people are perfect guardians of their own self-interest, I said, and I repeat, that a random person is a better guardians of his own self-interest than a random do-gooder.
I am getting a little frustrated with people arguing against strawmans of my positions, which has now happened several times on this thread. Am I being unclear?
None of those links suggest that people are worse guardians of their own self-interest than the outsider. In fact, quite the reverse. Take the fertilizer study. The reason that the farmers weren’t following the advice of the Kenyan Ministry of Agriculture was that it was bad advice. To quote:
[T]he full package recommended by the Ministry of Agriculture is highly unprofitable on average for the farmers in our sample… the official recommendations are not adapted to many farmers in the region.
So the study demonstrates that the farmers were better guardians of their own self-interest than some bureaucrat in Nairobi (no doubt advised by a western NGO). If they had been forced to follow the (no doubt well-meaning) advice, they would have been much worse off. Maybe some would have died. Now, at the same time, they don’t know every possible combination, and it turns out that if they changed their farming methodology, they could become more productive. Great! That’s how society advances—by persuading people as to what is in their self-interest, not by making someone else their guardian.
a random person is a better guardians of his own self-interest than a random do-gooder.
Phrased in this way, I think that I agree with you, on average.
In the original context of your statement, however, I had thought that you meant that “a random charity recipient” instead of “a random person”.
Now, charity recipients are still people, of course. However, charity recipients are usually people chosen on the basis of poverty; thus, the group of people who are charity recipients tend to be poor.
Now, some people are good guardians of their own long-term self-interest, and some are not. This is correlated with wealth in an unsurprising way (as demonstrated in the marshmallow experiment linked to above); those people who are better guardians of their own long-term self-interest are, on average, more likely to be above a certain minimum level of wealth than those who are not. They are, therefore, less likely to be charity recipients. Therefore, I conclude that people who are in a position to receive benefits from a charity are, on average, worse guardians of their own long-term self-interest than people who are in a position to contribute to a charity.
So. I therefore conclude that a person, on average, will be a better guardian of his own self-interest than a random person of the category (charity recipient); since the selection of people who fall into that category biases the category to those who are poor guardians of their own self-interest. It’s not the only factor selected for in that category, but it’s significant enough to have a noticeable effect.
I said, and I repeat, that a random person is a better guardians of his own self-interest than a random do-gooder.
But likely not a better guardian of his or her own self interest than a nonrandom do-gooder who’s researched the specific problems the person is dealing with and developed expertise in solving them with resources that the person is has had no opportunity to learn to make use of.
Certainly—tautologically—he’s not a better guardian of his or her own self interest than some who is in fact a better one. But inventing a fictional character who is in fact a better one does not advance any argument.
One might as well invent a nonrandom do-gooder who thinks they have properly researched what they think are the specific problems the person is dealing with and thinks they have developed expertise in solving them with resources that they think the person has had no opportunity to learn to make use of, but who is nonetheless wrong. As with, apparently, and non-fictionally, the Kenyan Ministry of Agriculture.
Of course, less qualified guardians of an individual’s self interest who believe themselves to be more qualified are a legitimate risk, but that doesn’t mean that the optimal solution is to have individuals act exclusively as guardians of their own self interest.
If the Kenyan Ministry of agriculture follows the prescriptions of the researchers in the article cited above, they will thereby become better guardians of those farmers’ interests than the farmers have thus far been, within that domain.
Of course, less qualified guardians of an individual’s self interest who believe themselves to be more qualified are a legitimate risk, but that doesn’t mean that the optimal solution is to have individuals act exclusively as guardians of their own self interest.
The optimal solution isn’t necessarily to have someone else act as the “guardian” of their self-interest, however well informed. BTW, I don’t know if this is true of American English, but in British English, one meaning of “guardian” is what an orphan has in place of parents. Doing things for adults without consulting them is usually a bad idea.
If the Kenyan Ministry of agriculture follows the prescriptions of the researchers in the article cited above, they will thereby become better guardians of those farmers’ interests than the farmers have thus far been, within that domain.
Not if they try to do so by simply coming in and telling the farmers what to do, nor by deciding the farmers’ economic calculations are wrong and manipulating subsidies to get them to do differently. (I’ve only glanced at the article; I don’t know if this is what they did.) Even when they’re right about what the farmers should be doing, they will go wrong if they use the wrong means to get that to happen. Providing information might be a better way to go. The presumption that if only you know enough, you can direct other people’s lives for them is pretty much always wrong.
Doing things for adults without consulting them is usually a bad idea.
But none of the examples given are of one person taking over another’s life. Most of this debate revolves around
the fallact that someone either runs their own life, or has it run for them. In fact, there are many degress of advice/help/co-operation.
I don’t know if this is true of American English, but in British English, one meaning of “guardian” is what an orphan has in place of parents.
Yes, this meaning is in American English as well. A typical parental permission form for a child to go on a field trip or what-have-you will ask for the signature of “a parent or legal guardian”.
a random person is a better guardians of his own self-interest than a random do-gooder.
That isn’t obvious. D-G’s are likely to be qualified to help people, the people they are helping are
likely to have a hsitory of not helping themselves sucessfully.
So the study demonstrates that the farmers were better guardians of their own self-interest
Would they have had access to fertilizer at all w/out the govt? Two heads are better than one, again.
It is not (language warning) entirely uncontroversial. Whether through poor education or through giving disproportionate value to present circumstances (and none or too little to future circumstances), people can and often do do things that are, in the long run, self-defeating. (And note that this ‘long run’ can be measured in weeks or months, even hours in particularly extreme cases).
At least one study suggests that the ability to reject a present reward in favour of a greater future reward is detectable at a young age and is correlated with success in life.
Of course people can do things that are self-defeating—did I ever suggest otherwise? I never said people are perfect guardians of their own self-interest, I said, and I repeat, that a random person is a better guardians of his own self-interest than a random do-gooder.
I am getting a little frustrated with people arguing against strawmans of my positions, which has now happened several times on this thread. Am I being unclear?
None of those links suggest that people are worse guardians of their own self-interest than the outsider. In fact, quite the reverse. Take the fertilizer study. The reason that the farmers weren’t following the advice of the Kenyan Ministry of Agriculture was that it was bad advice. To quote:
So the study demonstrates that the farmers were better guardians of their own self-interest than some bureaucrat in Nairobi (no doubt advised by a western NGO). If they had been forced to follow the (no doubt well-meaning) advice, they would have been much worse off. Maybe some would have died. Now, at the same time, they don’t know every possible combination, and it turns out that if they changed their farming methodology, they could become more productive. Great! That’s how society advances—by persuading people as to what is in their self-interest, not by making someone else their guardian.
Phrased in this way, I think that I agree with you, on average.
In the original context of your statement, however, I had thought that you meant that “a random charity recipient” instead of “a random person”.
Now, charity recipients are still people, of course. However, charity recipients are usually people chosen on the basis of poverty; thus, the group of people who are charity recipients tend to be poor.
Now, some people are good guardians of their own long-term self-interest, and some are not. This is correlated with wealth in an unsurprising way (as demonstrated in the marshmallow experiment linked to above); those people who are better guardians of their own long-term self-interest are, on average, more likely to be above a certain minimum level of wealth than those who are not. They are, therefore, less likely to be charity recipients. Therefore, I conclude that people who are in a position to receive benefits from a charity are, on average, worse guardians of their own long-term self-interest than people who are in a position to contribute to a charity.
So. I therefore conclude that a person, on average, will be a better guardian of his own self-interest than a random person of the category (charity recipient); since the selection of people who fall into that category biases the category to those who are poor guardians of their own self-interest. It’s not the only factor selected for in that category, but it’s significant enough to have a noticeable effect.
But likely not a better guardian of his or her own self interest than a nonrandom do-gooder who’s researched the specific problems the person is dealing with and developed expertise in solving them with resources that the person is has had no opportunity to learn to make use of.
Certainly—tautologically—he’s not a better guardian of his or her own self interest than some who is in fact a better one. But inventing a fictional character who is in fact a better one does not advance any argument.
One might as well invent a nonrandom do-gooder who thinks they have properly researched what they think are the specific problems the person is dealing with and thinks they have developed expertise in solving them with resources that they think the person has had no opportunity to learn to make use of, but who is nonetheless wrong. As with, apparently, and non-fictionally, the Kenyan Ministry of Agriculture.
Of course, less qualified guardians of an individual’s self interest who believe themselves to be more qualified are a legitimate risk, but that doesn’t mean that the optimal solution is to have individuals act exclusively as guardians of their own self interest.
If the Kenyan Ministry of agriculture follows the prescriptions of the researchers in the article cited above, they will thereby become better guardians of those farmers’ interests than the farmers have thus far been, within that domain.
The optimal solution isn’t necessarily to have someone else act as the “guardian” of their self-interest, however well informed. BTW, I don’t know if this is true of American English, but in British English, one meaning of “guardian” is what an orphan has in place of parents. Doing things for adults without consulting them is usually a bad idea.
Not if they try to do so by simply coming in and telling the farmers what to do, nor by deciding the farmers’ economic calculations are wrong and manipulating subsidies to get them to do differently. (I’ve only glanced at the article; I don’t know if this is what they did.) Even when they’re right about what the farmers should be doing, they will go wrong if they use the wrong means to get that to happen. Providing information might be a better way to go. The presumption that if only you know enough, you can direct other people’s lives for them is pretty much always wrong.
But none of the examples given are of one person taking over another’s life. Most of this debate revolves around the fallact that someone either runs their own life, or has it run for them. In fact, there are many degress of advice/help/co-operation.
Yes, this meaning is in American English as well. A typical parental permission form for a child to go on a field trip or what-have-you will ask for the signature of “a parent or legal guardian”.
That isn’t obvious. D-G’s are likely to be qualified to help people, the people they are helping are likely to have a hsitory of not helping themselves sucessfully.
Would they have had access to fertilizer at all w/out the govt? Two heads are better than one, again.